Senate debates

Tuesday, 15 July 2014

Bills

Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013 [No. 2]; Second Reading

12:34 pm

Photo of Larissa WatersLarissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise to continue my remarks against the Mineral Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013 which I began last night. As I mentioned last night, the Senate has already rejected this bill once. But because the coal lobby continues to call the shots in this place, here we are again. It continues to boggle my mind that we have a government that claims that we are in a budget crisis and yet is axing what, if fixed, could be a revenue raising measure. Only this government would bring down the harshest and most unfair budget in living memory and simultaneously give a tax break to the big mining companies.

Last night the Greens moved a second reading amendment to this bill to highlight one of the worst inequities of the planned abolition of the mining tax—that is, the abolition of the low-income super contribution, which, as I spelt out last night, would affect one in three Australian workers, one in two women and 80 per cent of women who work on a part-time or casual basis. We know that this government cares nought for the needs of the vulnerable. But why are they hiding the abolition of this low-income super contribution in the mining tax bill? Let us bring it out into the open. Let us have a debate on whether we think it is okay as a parliamentary chamber to make it harder for women to retire with financial security.

I also challenge this government to justify how they can give a tax break to the world's largest companies after they have delivered—or seek to deliver—the cruellest budget that is hurting ordinary Australians. Why would this government go down such a wrong headed path? Is it just ideology? Well, perhaps. But I actually think it is more stark than that. The priorities of this government are exemplified and summed up in an exchange that was leaked to the media concerning another cave-in to mining companies. When the federal government was earlier considering scrapping the multi-billion dollar diesel tax rebate paid to mining companies, a senior Liberal was reported to have said that it was never really on the agenda because, 'Gina and Twiggy would have been coming after us.' A more apt reminder of who calls the shots could not be wished for.

Photo of Ian MacdonaldIan Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Now, you excused them from the debt levy. Where were you then?

Photo of Stephen ParryStephen Parry (President) Share this | | Hansard source

Order on my right!

Photo of Larissa WatersLarissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | | Hansard source

Overseas mining companies are ripping ordinary Australians off, and this government is letting it happen. Let us be honest, that is how this tax was designed. It was designed to fail because the mining companies wrote it that way. After an advertising campaign which toppled the Prime Minister and shredded the resource super profits tax, the big mining companies actually got to write their own tax rules. If individuals got to write their own tax rules, the country would not have any money. So those lobbying efforts by the big end of town—the big miners—of course changed the rate of tax from the original proposal of 40 per cent down to an effective 22 ½ per cent. A pretty good return on investment with that one!

They of course changed the minerals to which the tax applied to just coal and iron ore, not uranium, gold and other minerals. And the royalty rebate, the rebating of future increases to state royalties, is perhaps the worst example of a total lark. This allowed the revenue to be eroded by state governments. The Greens had a bill to correct that but, sadly, we received absolutely no support.

The Henry tax review had recommended replacing royalties with a profit based tax but that was considered a second best option—crediting companies for royalties paid but only if those royalty regimes were fixed at a particular point in time to ensure, obviously, that the Australian government did not then just automatically refund royalty increases. Surprise surprise, because of that massive loophole we had Western Australia, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania upping their royalties, leaving the Commonwealth rebating the mining companies for that increase. What an absolute farce.

The Parliamentary Budget Office costed the Greens proposal to limit those royalty rebates to a fixed point in time—1 July 2011—at $2.2 billion over the forward estimates. Sadly, because both of the big parties are in the pocket of the mining industry, this loophole remained on the books—and, as we know, the mining tax barely raised a dime.

The other affronting aspect to the design of this tax is depreciation, whereby the mining companies can price their assets using today's inflated market values and then claim massive annual deductions under that amount, not what they actually spent on capital investment. Under the revised version the amount expected to be raised in the last financial year was $4 billion, but only $232 million was actually collected. This is despite the fact that the profits of the big three iron ore companies to whom the tax predominantly applies—BHP, Rio Tinto and Glencore Xstrata—had risen by 81 per cent in the previous financial year and their combined half-yearly profits were $14.6 billion. With Rio's half-yearly profits at $6.4 billion and BHP's at $6.5 billion you have got to wonder: if these are not super profits, what is? And sadly, as we should all know, most of those profits are shipped offshore. Only one-fifth of the industry's huge profits accrue to Australians through dividends—and, even then, direct ownership of shares only benefits those with enough discretionary income to actually invest.

Clearly there have been some winners from the mining boom—most notably, the shareholders of the companies doing the mining. But the Reserve Bank made the correct observation that: 'Since the mining sector in Australia is majority foreign owned most dividends and retained earnings accrue to foreigners and therefore do not add to national income.' And those big profits which flow offshore do not equate to more jobs for Australians. It is the government's job to govern in the public interest. Large profit margins are nice for mining companies, but they do not equal job creation; and if profits are not staying in the Australian economy, they are clearly not creating jobs. The mining industry does create some jobs—not as many as they like to claim—but even those jobs come at a cost to the broader economy. The Australian dollar, as we all know, has become volatile due to the mining boom and the fact that it has been sustained at high levels for many years now. It is also keeping interest rates higher than they otherwise would be and it is creating labour shortages of in particular regions and in certain skills. This has resulted in lower profits, fewer jobs and lower returns to shareholders in other industries, particularly manufacturing and tourism.

We have got one chance to make sure the nation gets a share of the current windfall profits being made by 80 per cent foreign owned multinationals. That is why we are seeking to amend this bill to increase the rate of the mining tax back up to the original plan of 40 per cent and apply it to all minerals, not just iron ore and coal. We want to rebate those royalties that were in place at July 2011 so that the mining companies, not federal taxpayers, are required to pay any subsequent royalty hikes that the states impose and to allow depreciation on the book value of the amounts actually spent on mining infrastructure only. According to the post-election report by the Parliamentary Budget Office, those measures that I have just mentioned would raise an extra $21.8 billion in revenue. We are told we are in a budget crisis but, gee, what could we do with $21.8 billion of revenue! Well, maybe we could stop inflicting damage on the most vulnerable Australians by cutting the services and supports that they rely on.

The mining boom is transitioning from the capital-intensive phase to the production phase. This is when super profits occur because the revenue from production will be rising and they will be less able to deduct it against capital investments. So we need to get the super profits tax in place before those super profits are shipped offshore to foreign investors. A poll in January this year found that a majority of Australians, 54 per cent, believe multinational mining companies do not pay enough tax. And clearly they do not.

People value the things and the services that a good government should provide. They want to keep the low income super contribution, as per the Greens amendment to this bill. They want to keep Medicare as a universal healthcare entitlement that a wealthy nation can provide to its citizens, not a $7 tax on the sick which will increase pressure on hospitals. They want to keep, and even increase, funding for early childhood education right through to higher education and funding for those final two years of Gonski. They want to properly address affordable housing and homelessness rather than axing NRAS—both of which are made worse by the mining boom and fly in fly out work. They want to raise Newstart so that people have a chance to have the resources to get to that job interview and get back into employment. They want to put single parents back onto parenting payment rather than Newstart which leaves them up to $100 worse off per week. They want to fund child care so that there are more and more affordable childcare places for families and so that women have genuine choices. They want decent public transport and dental health. The list goes on with respect to what you could do with $21.8 billion were we to fix the loopholes in the mining tax rather than simply turf it out because the big mining companies would like you to do so. They do not like paying any tax. They like to write their own tax rules and would rather see this tax completely gone.

As countless economists have pointed out, most of the profits earned by Australia's mining industry flow to foreign shareholders. They are not spent in Australia, which means that the mining industry adds surprisingly little to the domestic jobs market. But despite the potential of a mining superprofits tax to reinvest wealth generated by mining into the Australian economy, the all-knowing, all-seeing coalition MPs remain steadfast in their opposition to it. Experts say that a mining superprofits tax would actually promote job creation.

The current government's approach is short-sighted in the extreme and economically unsustainable. Foreign-owned mining companies are damaging our natural environment, selling our resources and leaving us very little in exchange. The least we can do is get a share of their superprofits. The moguls who run the mining industry are not putting the Australian public before their own personal interests. That is our job as representatives in the federal parliament and we Greens will continue to fight for a fair share of the resources for the people of Australia, which they themselves own.

It is apposite to put the proposed repeal of the mining tax and the potential $21.8 billion in revenue that could be raised if we were to fix up the loopholes in the mining tax in the context of the budget. We know that only this government would seek to bring down the harshest budget in living memory, while trying to give a tax break to the big mining companies. We know that only this government would force young Australians to live with literally no money for six months, just for the crime of being unemployed. How on earth it thinks that will help people get jobs completely eludes me and it eludes any sense of logic. Only this government would decide to put a $7 tax on sick people, who are visiting the doctor, when actually visiting the doctor saves the system money by detecting chronic disease at an early stage. Only this government would rip billions of dollars out of higher education and leave students with a lifetime of ever-increasing debt, which is now subject to a higher interest rate that compounds.

The government want to cut the age pension. They want to cut funding for education, health and assistance for apprentices. They want to cut funding for the disability support pension. And the largest single cut in the budget was $7 billion from foreign aid over the forward estimates—money which was going to lift the world's poorest people out of poverty. There are too many cuts to remember, let alone list. But they include cuts to legal aid for the disadvantaged, cuts to services in Indigenous communities, cuts to affordable housing, cuts to the ABC and SBS, cuts to scientific research, cuts to dental care, cuts to preventative health, cuts to the arts and cuts to renewable energy. And, of course, there are cuts to the natural environment, by way of axing the Biodiversity Fund; cuts to funding for Landcare; cuts to natural resource management programs; and cuts to funding for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

In the very same breath as all of those cuts, the government are seeking to axe the carbon price paid by the big polluters, forgoing $18 billion over the forward estimates. They want to axe the mining tax and, again, forgo $21.8 billion from the mining tax, if those loopholes were to be closed. And they want to cut the rate of corporate tax by 1½ per cent. Ultimately, it is very clear what the priorities of the government are: deliver for the big end of town and let ordinary Australians suffer, while coalition MPs laugh all the way to the bank. If that is what you think, then I am afraid you have got another think coming. You may win the battle today, but you will not win the war.

The hearts and minds of the Australian community are firmly fixed on this harsh budget and they oppose it with every fibre of their being, just as we in this place do and just as we will with respect to the mining tax repeal bill. We stand for a fair share of the profits being raised by the big mining companies going back into the Australian community and for them to properly clean up the mess that they create.

12:49 pm

Photo of Dean SmithDean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Mr President, it has been remiss of me on previous occasions not to have congratulated you on your elevation to the high office of President of the Senate. So can I use this opportunity to convey to you my best wishes on your presidency.

As a Western Australian senator, I am particularly pleased to take part in the debate around this bill, the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and other Measures Bill 2013 [No. 2], to finally rid us of Labor's mining tax, which stands as a symbol of the Labor Party's betrayal of Western Australia. It will not come as news to anyone, at least no-one on this side of the chamber, that the mining and resources sector is of critical importance to my home state of Western Australia. Indeed, just last week I had the opportunity to attend the 2014 Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, AMEC, at its conference in Perth. AMEC is the peak industry body for mineral and exploration companies in Australia and its conference is one of the most significant gatherings to take place in Western Australia each year.

It was a particularly important gathering this year because, over the past 12 months, we have been hearing a lot of gloomy predictions—if the doomsday predictions of some commentators are to be believed—about the mining sector in Western Australia and about an imminent collapse of the Western Australian economy. I am pleased to report that this is very far from the case and I will come to some of the numbers in a moment. But the overarching message that emerged from last week's conference was the need for certainty. That should not come as a great surprise. We know and understand that business likes certainty. That is what this government is seeking to provide. Whether it be on the repeal of the mining tax, the repeal of the carbon tax or its commitment to put the budget back on a sustainable path to surplus, this government is determined to put Australia back on track.

I know that Senator Dastyari enjoys it when I quote Paul Keating and, indeed, despite our political differences, I think there is much wisdom in some of the former Prime Minister's words. At the time of the 1996 election, Mr Keating said:

If you change the government, you change the country.

There is probably no starker demonstration of that than the change that came over Australia in the period following the change of government in 2007. Because, in 2007, Australia was a confident, strong economy with a substantial budget surplus, low unemployment and strong jobs growth. But the Labor Party soon put end to that.

I know the typical response to that charge is 'global financial crisis' and I readily admit that the Rudd Labor government did have to deal with that enormous challenge. The fact it was able to do so is not any particular tribute to its own skills but rather the fact that it was bequeathed the financial resources to do so by its predecessor, the Howard government. Because Australia had such a large budget surplus at that time, the Labor Party was able to implement a range of measures that it felt were required to stave off a serious economic problem.

History has shown that many of those spending priorities were wrongheaded, but that is a debate for another occasion. However, I do want to make the point that none of us in this place can claim a gift of economic clairvoyance, at least not with any certainty of accuracy. We do not know what is around the corner, what economic shocks may await us in the short and medium term. What we do know, however, is that, if there were to be another global financial crisis next week, then Australia could not respond as it did in 2008, because the economic buffer that we had built, that the Howard government had established—a strong budget surplus—is gone. Despite promising for six years that they had a plan, that the surplus was coming, the former Treasurer the member for Lilley never managed to actually deliver one. He did not even come close. So, as is usually the case, it now falls to the coalition to repair the budget mess created by others and to restore some sense of certainty and confidence to the Australian economy.

One of the best ways to do that is to remove from Australian businesses and producers the burden of unnecessary and ineffective taxes such as Labor's mining tax. If you actually care about workers, if you actually care about creating job opportunities, as those opposite insist they do, then the best thing government can do is let businesses get on with it and not create additional economic uncertainty through experimental tax measures. It is not just members of the coalition who are saying this. Last week in Perth, at the AMEC conference I mentioned a few moments ago, the Treasury secretary, Dr Martin Parkinson, had this to say, as reported in The Australian newspaper last week:

Proposals which work in a textbook but fail to recognise commercial realities (particularly in business tax), will eventually be found out.

Their purported benefits may well prove illusory, the costs they impose may be greater than assumed, and they might be difficult, if not impossible, to implement.

That is an eloquent summation of everything that was wrong with Labor's mining tax, both the Rudd and Gillard iterations of it. It was designed in secret in the dying days of Kevin Rudd's first period as Prime Minister and dropped on the mining and resources community without warning. I will not tread over the well-worn ground, but we all know what happened next. Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan used the savage public and business reaction against the mining tax as a stick with which to beat Kevin Rudd and then to take his job. The new Prime Minister, the self-styled 'great negotiator', proceeded to do a deal with Australia's three largest mining companies on a new version of the mining tax, which she dubbed the minerals resource rent tax, better known as the MRRT. The ink was not dry when Julia Gillard rushed into a press conference to declare she had won a great victory, and then, almost as quickly, she rushed off to Yarralumla to call the election at which she proceeded to lose Labor's parliamentary majority.

One of the problems with the MRRT—and there are many—is that it was a political fix, not an economic solution. It was designed to get Labor through an election campaign, not to correct our economic woes. However, as with most things the Gillard Labor government did, its mining tax did not bear up to scrutiny and it did not deliver the outcomes it promised. Remember, when the mining tax was first proposed under Kevin Rudd, it was projected to raise around $50 billion in revenue. The version of the tax that Julia Gillard cobbled together saw a significant write-down of that projection, to $26.5 billion—a notable reduction but still a significant amount of revenue. But the problem was that that was not the first downward revision of projected revenue to be raised by the mining tax. The reductions, the revisions, kept coming and coming. So, in February 2012, the member for Lilley, still Treasurer, was forced to concede that, in the first six months of its operation, Labor's mining tax had raised just $126 million—falling ridiculously short of the tens of billions originally projected. It then emerged that only around 20 mining companies had actually been required to pay the MRRT but that another 145 had been required to go through the process of compliance—that is, enduring the time and expense of employing accountants, lawyers and other various advisers and submitting reams of paperwork, all for a tax they were not actually required to pay. This, apparently, was the Labor Party's idea of good, sound sensible economic policy.

Ultimately, Labor's mining tax raised around $400 million in total over Labor's period in office. That is $26.5 billion projected and a paltry $400 million raised. You might think that a government would be chastened by such a disastrous failure and admit that it had got it wrong. But we are talking here about the Australian Labor Party. Although it is now two decades since he retired from this chamber, evidently Graham Richardson's exhortation to do 'whatever it takes' remains the Labor Party's key informing principle, because, completely ignoring the fact that its MRRT was not raising anywhere near the level of revenue it had promised, the Labor Party nonetheless ran around Australia promising people and communities projects and policies that were to be funded out of the mining tax. In fact, the former Labor government locked in around $16.7 billion in spending commitments from a tax that raised just $400 million. With this kind of irresponsible approach, it is small wonder that Australia now has a serious debt and deficit problem, though, to be fair, the Labor Party seemingly cannot see that either, or at least not yet.

As a senator with an especially keen interest in WA's regional communities, I think this is something worth noting. Labor's behaviour in the lead-up to the 2013 election, when it cynically promised the earth to regional communities by announcing a swag of projects through the Regional Development Australia Fund, knowing that there was simply no money there, is one of the most brazen political betrayals I have yet witnessed as a member of parliament. It is simply outrageous to falsely build up the hopes of regional communities, in the hope that promises of funding on the never-never will be enough to sustain you through an election campaign. During its final weeks in office, the Labor Party added almost 1,000 projects to the Regional Development Australia list. Many of these did not go through a proper assessment process and were not contracted. But that did not stop the Labor Party announcing them as funding commitments, even though it knew full well that the money to fund them—money that was supposed to be raised by the MRRT—simply did not exist. It was a cruel, calculated and cynical attempt to buy the votes of those living in regional communities, and the Labor Party should be ashamed of its own behaviour on this front, though I have not yet heard any expressions of remorse coming from senators opposite.

I said earlier that the mining and resources sector is of critical ongoing importance to Western Australia, and as a West Australian senator I am determined to do everything I can to facilitate confidence and certainty in the sector. Despite the challenges in the international economy and the falling iron ore price, the value of Western Australia's resources sector reached a record $113.8 billion in 2013. Within that, it is still iron ore and gold that remain the dominant exports, together accounting for 86 per cent of mineral sales last year. Over recent years, WA's mining and resources sector has experienced relatively high levels of capital investment, averaging around $140 billion over the three most recent financial years. But, as we all know, many mining projects in Western Australia are now transitioning from their construction phase to their operational phase.

Accordingly, the question for governments, both federal and state, is increasingly about what we can do to boost confidence levels and provide a more effective and efficient regulatory framework for operators to do business in. From a federal standpoint, the best thing we can do right now is to remove the burden of Labor's ineffective and unnecessary minerals resource rent tax. That is what this government said it would do and, after many months of posturing and delay from Labor and the Greens, it is what this Senate should do now. Because, as successful as our mining and resources sector is, there is scope for it to do better. The Fraser Institute's 2013 Annual Survey of Mining Companies was quite revealing in this respect. Each year, the survey measures how items like regulatory certainty impact upon investor confidence. While I am proud to say that WA was easily ranked as the best Australian jurisdiction, WA was ranked sixth in the world in the institute's policy perception index.

Sixth in the world is not a terrible result, but the difference between those of us on this side of the chamber and those opposite can be measured in our response to that sort of result. The standard the Labor Party seem to aim for is 'better than most others'. The standard we in the coalition aim for is 'best of all'. That is the difference. That is why in debates over debt and deficit in this place, the Labor Party are constantly wanting to point out the size of budget deficits in other jurisdictions. However, the view I take, along with my coalition colleagues, is that 'better than Greece' is not the standard we should be aiming for. In public policy, we should always strive to be the best that we can be—not simply better than most others.

That is why we need to repeal the mining tax—to improve policy perception for investors and make sure that our mining and resources sector can maintain their strong levels of performance, particularly given the challenge of falling commodity prices. That issue alone is enough for our mining companies to be dealing with, without the added burden of ongoing compliance with a failed, utterly discredited MRRT—which the Greens are hand in glove with in terms of their support for the previous Labor government.

The repeal of the mining tax and its associated expenditure will improve the budget bottom line over the current forward estimates by nearly $13 billion. The repeal of the MRRT will also provide welcome relief on compliance costs, saving millions of dollars for small, medium and large enterprises. Instead of those millions of dollars being poured into paperwork, these enterprises will now be able to spend them on core activities—which will boost the prospects for job creation.

There are some in the Labor Party who actually recognise this. Mark Bishop was, until a couple of weeks ago, a colleague of ours in this chamber. It is a very sad thing for the Labor Party that he is no longer with us in this place, because he at least was able to see sense on this point. On ABC radio's AM program on 7 April this year, now former Labor Senator Mark Bishop had this to say in relation to Labor's mining tax in WA:

We hold three seats out of 15 and the simple reason is that, in this state—

in Western Australia—

we speak a language that is either not understood by voters, or, if understood, rejected.

This state is different to the east coast of Australia, we don't have any manufacturing industry of significant consequence, and whilst they are important on the east coast, other industries are important over here.

'over here' meaning Western Australia—

And the people who work in those industries, people who own those industries, the people who run those industries are wilfully and continuously ignored by the leadership of the Labor party. The result is we get 21 or 22 per cent of the primary vote in a by-election.

The mining tax, the carbon tax, have been an ongoing problem for at least five years. This mining tax was never understood, never been sold adequately, it's been a failure in practice. In practice, it has not worked. Why on God's green we defend a failed tax that doesn't raise money I will never understand.

They are not my words; they are the words of former Labor Senator Mark Bishop.

Regrettably, Mark Bishop was firmly in the minority inside the Australian Labor Party and, to their detriment, is no longer in this place. Instead, we have the sort of half-hearted, conflicted and confused views offered by people like the member for Perth, the shadow parliamentary secretary for Western Australia. Poor Ms. MacTiernan does not seem to quite know what her position is on the mining tax. On 19 March this year at the doors of this parliamentary building, she said the following:

I think it would be fair to say that the mining tax hasn't done the job that it was designed to do.

And so say all of us, at least on this side of the chamber! Yet, just four days later, on 23 March—and presumably after the Leader of the Opposition or other colleagues had put the hard word on her—Ms MacTiernan, the federal Labor member for Perth, was back in the mining tax supporters club, saying, when she appeared on ABC News 24:

Certainly I support the mining tax. I think the idea of a profits-based tax is an extremely good one and I think we've got to get this very clear. This was the position that the industry actually wanted.

This is the person the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Shorten, tapped as his party's chief spokesperson for Western Australia—and what does she do; how does she act? She falls right in line with the preferred position of her dominant eastern states colleagues in the ALP.

It seems to me—and, I am sure, to others—that the Australian Labor Party is resolute in its determination to ignore former Labor Senator Mark Bishop's very sound advice. Labor's continuing attempts to prevent this government's efforts to repeal the mining tax are sending a very clear message to Western Australians—most particularly, to Western Australians involved in the mining and resources sector that is so crucial to job creation and economic growth in our state. There is no such equivocation inside the coalition. We understand and respect the key role that mining plays in the Western Australian economy. We understand the need for the mining sector to have ongoing certainty. That is why we, on this side of the chamber—we coalition senators—are determined to provide that certainty by repealing this failed mining tax.

1:07 pm

Photo of Doug CameronDoug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | | Hansard source

I must say: if it is such a great problem in Western Australia, why couldn't Senator Smith even see his 20 minutes out? He could not even talk about the issue for 20 minutes without a series of handwritten notes—followed line by line, word by word—emanating from the minister's office, and the Prime Minister's office, running the coalition line. He could not even last 20 minutes to defend the abolition of the minerals resource rent tax.

Let me again make my position clear—and it has been clear and unequivocal for some time: the miners in this country must pay their fair share. We hear a lot from the coalition, when they are talking about their failed budget—their budget that was based on a series of lies—about how their budget is fair. The problem for the coalition is: nobody in the country believes that their budget is fair. They talk about 'lifters and leaners', as if, when you are on the pension, you are a leaner! If you are on the disability pension you are a leaner! If you are unfortunate enough to be unemployed, you are a leaner! And you are only a lifter if you are out there working! Well, maybe they should apply the 'lifters and leaners' analogy to the mining companies who are leaning on this country, who are not paying appropriate taxation in this country, and who are registered overseas in areas where they can manipulate their tax in various countries around the world, including in Australia.

The coalition talk about the age of entitlement being over. Well, it seems to me that the age of entitlement is over for pensioners, for students, for seniors, for disability support pensioners and for Newstart workers, and it is over for the poor and unemployed in this country. But it is not over for Gina Rinehart and Twiggy Forrest, because they are entitled, under this proposal, to come in and continue to rip this country off by not paying an appropriate share of taxation to make sure that we can fund the schools, fund the roads, fund the health system, and fund the infrastructure in this country. How dare Senator Smith come in here and lecture the Labor Party, when the coalition is simply bowing down and conceding to the vested interests in this country—those vested interests being the big mining companies.

The coalition talk about doing cost-benefit analysis. Well, how about a bit of cost-benefit analysis of what it means to this society to hammer the pensioners, cut back on the health system, cut back on social security and cut back on the education system, while you let Gina Rinehart and Twiggy Forrest, BHP and Rio Tinto and all those mining companies rip us off, day in and day out? How about a bit of cost-benefit analysis on that?

They talk about the cost to future generations when they are talking about their failed budget. Well, let me talk about the cost to future generations of not ensuring that BHP, Rio Tinto and the multibillionaire miners pay their fair share of tax. What it means is that Australians will not be able to get a pension until they are 70. That is the longest retirement period for any country in the world. Why? Because, according to this mob over here, according to the Prime Minister and his minions, you are a leaner if you now retire at 65 or 66; you have got to go to 70. And yet the mining companies can continue to rip us off, mercilessly, in terms of paying a fair share of tax in this country.

They talk about 'grown-up' policies. Well, what could be a more grown-up policy than ensuring that we have a decent society in this country—that we have a good society, and that it is not a society just for those on the banks of the Swan River living in their huge mansions who can fly Senator Joyce and other parliamentarians off to weddings in India simply because they can afford to do it? How about a bit of grown-up policy on ensuring that we get a fair share in this country?

They talk about economic responsibility. What an absolute joke! Surely the economic responsibility that any government has is to take advice from experts and understand that the mining industry is not paying its fair share and understand that, by ensuring that the mining industry pays its fair share of taxation, we can then look after future generations in this country. Surely these are the main issues.

You heard Senator Smith: it raises a paltry $400 million! Well, I know where I stand on this. Give the government that $400 million so we can look after health and education, and we can make sure kids can go to university if they are from working-class backgrounds. Surely these are the issues that are important for economic responsibility; not letting the miners use their tax havens around the world to deny us proper payment for our natural resources, the natural resources that are making these people multibillionaires are our resources.

When you read the BRW 500 rich list, who is No. 1? Gina Rinehart. Where did Gina Rinehart get her money from? She did not get her money from going out there and working hard. She did not get her money from getting a job or inventing something new. She did not get her money because she was some great entrepreneur. She got her money because her dad left her the money. She inherited this fortune. She inherited a fortune and then she has the cheek and the hide to tell Australian workers that, unless they take pay cuts, we will not be 'flexible' enough, we will not be 'competitive' enough, against overseas countries. In 2012 Gina Rinehart in a speech to the mining industry—she did not go there; it was too much of a problem to actually go to the thing; she posted a video of her speech on a website—at the Sydney Mining Club, she said that it was not 'business as usual', and that:

… Australians should not be complacent about the investment pipeline given that African labourers will work for less than $2 a day.

This is the richest individual in Australia, one of the richest people in the world, saying 'you cannot keep doing what you are doing, because Africans will work for two dollars a day'. She said:

Furthermore, Africans want to work, and its workers are willing to work for less than $2 per day. Such statistics make me worry for this country's future.

Then she rambles on about a special tax for the mining areas in the north of Western Australia. My challenge to Gina Rinehart is: go and talk personally to some of those South African miners that are forced to work for two dollars a day. There will be none of them saying, 'We love working for two dollars a day.' Those workers are being exploited. Those workers are in some of the poorest conditions in the world. That is why you see the problems in the South African mining industry, because workers are not getting a fair go. I say to Gina Rinehart: we will never in Australia be working for what you want us to work for. We will never accept any advice from the richest person in Australia telling us that we should compare ourselves with workers earning two bucks a day.

I take the view that we need to properly tax our mining industry. It is not just my view; it is the view of some of the most senior economists in the country. It is also the view of the former Secretary of the Treasury that, if you do not make sure that you get a fair go, you will not be able to do properly what we need to do in this country.

I was on the committee that looked at the MRRT. You should not scrap the MRRT. Dr Ken Henry, the former Secretary of the Treasury, knew well that we should go down the path of the MRRT. There are issues, in my view, that we should look at in terms of the MRRT in the future. I did a dissenting report arising out of that committee and I said that there should be consistent reporting procedures for these mining companies; that we should undertake a detailed analysis of the sustainability and suitability of various allowances, including the uplift rates the long-term bond rate plus seven per cent; assess whether that bond rate is the appropriate standard for mining losses; monitor the appropriateness of the 25 per cent deduction. I took the view on a range of issues that they should be looked at but should never be scrapped, because they are absolutely important.

What we have from over the other side is basically political subservience to one of the most powerful and richest sectors in this country. This is a sector that sends 83 per cent of its profits overseas. These are not Australian companies; these are foreign owned companies. The mob on that side of the House get multimillion dollar donations from individuals in the mining industry and from the mining companies. It goes straight into the coalition slush funds, straight into the Free Enterprise Foundation, straight into the Millennium Forum. Why would they be here, standing up for the Australian public? They are standing up for their own political position, watching the money flow in from the big mining companies and keeping them in political power. They are massively conflicted in terms of this issue.

They are facilitating rent-seeking by these over 80 per cent foreign owned companies. They are putting big business interests before the national interest. They are diminishing what we in Australia call the fair go. We are not getting a fair go from these mining companies. They are entrenching power and privilege. What else would you expect from the conservatives? What else would you expect from the Liberal and National parties? They are increasing and preserving power and privilege in this country and they are increasing inequality, because these big mining companies are not paying their fair share of tax.

This is a mob who lied their way to power in this country. They lied to pensioners; they lied to seniors; they lied to students; they lied to sick people; they lied to the mums and dads of this country. Now they are here paying the price. The fiddlers are out there fiddling. The mining companies are fiddling and they are dancing to the mining companies' tune—absolutely no doubt about it. This is what this is about.

This is a finite resource. The mineral wealth of this country is a finite resource. I was quite taken aback when we heard about how much mineral resources we have in this country. In 80 years time all of the easily extractable minerals will be gone. Hopefully, my grandkids will still be alive then. If they are still alive, they will have to adjust to a country without a mining industry. So what do we move to?

Here is a mob over here that chases companies out, chases Toyota out, chases GM out: 'We don't want you.' It tells them, 'If you don't want to survive in this country without any government assistance, just go away.' So what do they do? They go away. So what are we left with? We are left with a big hole in the ground and no future. That is what we are left with. That is why we need money now from these miners—to build the future of this country. That is why it is so important. We want a fair return so we as governments can invest in the future for our kids.

There is a thing called the resources curse, the Dutch disease. Some of you may have heard about it. It is where a country has all these mineral resources and it then puts so much pressure on the other industries, because the dollar goes through the roof and your other industries hit the wall. I have asked time and time again over the last few years: will we suffer the Dutch disease? I have been told, 'Don't worry about it, Senator Cameron, we won't, but we certainly have. All of the predictions I have heard that we will not suffer the Dutch disease—from the Reserve Bank, from the Treasury, from ministers, from treasurers at Senate committee hearings—have been proved to be so much hogwash. Our dollar is high and no-one can figure out how to get the dollar down so the rest of the economy can take up the slack as the mining industry diminishes. It is a huge economic problem. It is a problem we do not seem to be able to deal with.

So the resources curse has hit Australia. The Dutch disease has hit us. But one way you can get out of it is the same way that other countries have taken. When you are making massive profits, when the mining companies are really piling the money up—millions and billions atop millions and billions—we should get our fair share. The problem is we cannot get our fair share because the mining companies are not registered predominantly in Australia. What they do is they head off overseas, and there is a report called Piping profits. They pipe profits all over the world. This report simply indicates what is happening.

Just before I go to that, Glencore are one of our biggest mining companies. They bought out Xstrata Coal. They earned $15 billion of income last year. Do you know how much tax they paid out of $15 billion? Nothing—zero, zilch, not a penny—from $15 billion of income. Here is a foreign owned multinational not paying a cent. Why didn't they pay a cent? Because they borrowed money off other Glencore companies from overseas at extremely high interest rates and then came to the Australian Taxation Office and said, 'We have to pay these high interest rate loans off,' and they get tax back from the Australian government. So they manipulate the tax system everywhere. They earn $15 billion in Australia and pay not a cent in tax. If there were ever a reason why you should have a minerals resource rent tax, that is it.

So what happens to all the money that is supposed to go to our hospitals, to pay our pensions, to look after our education system? It goes back to the company's main headquarters in some tax haven overseas and then it is split around all these high-paid executives who are ripping countries off all over the world. We should stop the rip-off in Australia. The coalition should stop making excuses for mining companies that will not pay their freight in this country. They should stop being apologists for the mining companies. They should stop justifying cuts to health, education, infrastructure. They should stop that. The money can be achieved in this country only if the miners pay their fair share, and the MRRT is the start of making sure they pay their fair share. So let's build a decent country, let's make sure there is fairness and let's make sure that the leaders of the mining industry pay a fair share. (Time expired)

1:27 pm

Photo of Glenn LazarusGlenn Lazarus (Queensland, Palmer United Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise today to let all Australians know that the Palmer United Party supports the abolition of the mining tax, but we do not and cannot support the removal of three key low-income support measures contained within the bill that the government is seeking to abolish simply to save money. Therefore, the Palmer United Party will only support the abolition of the mining tax on the condition that the three key low-income support measures are retained, as these allow for the provision of vital support to Australian low-income earners. These are the low-income superannuation contribution, the income support bonus and the schoolkids bonus.

While my Palmer United colleagues and I support the repeal of the minerals resource rent tax—commonly known as the mining tax—because it is an unjust, anticompetitive and malicious tax which only serves to hurt the Australian resource sector and, more broadly, the economy and social wellbeing of our country, we will not allow the removal of vital support from many Australians who most need our help. Therefore, as leader of the Palmer United Senate team, I propose and have circulated an amendment which will ensure the retention of the low-income super contribution. My Palmer United Senate colleague and deputy leader of the Palmer United Senate team, Senator Lambie, has proposed and circulated amendments to ensure the retention of the schoolkids bonus and income support bonus.

The Palmer United Party is committed to reuniting the nation and supporting all Australians to live a full, secure, productive and meaningful life. The Palmer United Party is determined to ensure all Australians have the opportunity to retire without fear of poverty and neglect. The low-income super contribution is a prudent, meaningful and well-thought-out initiative which helps the most needy in our community to plan and to save for their future. Low-income earners have their superannuation taxed at 15 per cent, even though they do not earn enough to be taxed on their income. This makes it very difficult for low-income earners to save for retirement.

The low-income super contribution helps low-income earners to save for their retirement by providing a payment of up to $500 a year which is paid directly into their super account. The low-income super contribution initiative recognises that we must help the most vulnerable in our community to live a decent, fulfilling and rewarding life in retirement by helping them to save for their retirement. When the low-income super contribution was introduced, it was estimated that the program would benefit some 3.6 million Australians on low and modest incomes, including 2.1 million women.

While a maximum super contribution of $500 does not sound like much, it can add substantially to the final super balance accrued at the time of retirement. For example, according to the Australia Institute, a low-income earner of 25 years of age who receives $500 per year and retires at the age of 65 will accrue additional super of $37,700 on retirement due to the low-income super contribution. If the low-income super contribution is repealed the eventual super payout will be $37,700 less. If the low-income super contribution is repealed, women across Australia will be negatively impacted and will lose vital financial security for their future. The Palmer United Party cannot and will not support such reckless, callous, ruthless and thoughtless harm being imposed on Australian women and low-income earners.

The government should be introducing and maintaining measures to enhance the involvement and contribution of women to Australia's economy, not creating barriers to their participation and financial wellbeing. In particular, the government should be supporting those who are working hard to support themselves and their families without relying solely on the financial assistance of others, not penalising them. Every Australian deserves to retire with dignity and to enjoy life after many years of hard work. Retaining the low-income super contribution will enable many low-income earners who are desperately struggling to pay even the most basic of bills day to day like food, power and petrol, let alone saving for retirement, to look forward to retirement and a future which offers hope, security, happiness and independence without financial    reliance on others. I am at a loss to understand why the government would want to remove a program which provides such vital support to Australians most in need—honest, decent Australians who work hard, raise families, endure challenges and hardships, volunteer their time, support their local community and care for others.

If the low-income super contribution is removed, in my home state of Queensland alone some 22,947 people in the federal seat of Wide Bay will be affected. That is 44.4 per cent of working people in this part of Queensland, which takes in iconic towns such as Gympie and Maryborough, who will lose up to $500 in superannuation each year. A further 27,568 people in the federal seat of Maranoa will be affected. That is nearly 43 per cent of working employees in this part of Queensland who will lose up to $500 in superannuation each year. Hardworking Queenslanders in this area, which includes iconic towns such as Kingaroy, Longreach, Roma, Warwick and Charleville, will be needlessly affected. And it gets worse. If the low-income super contribution is removed, in the federal seat of Hinkler the number of people affected will be 19,800. That is 42.3 per cent of the working population in this part of Queensland, which includes iconic towns such as Bundaberg, Hervey Bay and Childers, who will be hurt.

Regional and rural Australia is already on its knees. Much of my state of Queensland consists of regional and rural areas, and people in these areas are doing it tough. They are hurting. Suicides are a regular occurrence among our farmers. I find it extraordinary that the government would want to remove the low-income super contribution, given the financial harm this will cause to regional and rural Australia. The Palmer United Party will not allow the government to hurt regional and rural Australia by ceasing the low-income super contribution. The Palmer United Party cares about regional and rural Australia.

We as representatives of the Australian people and I as a senator for Queensland have an obligation to take care of our people, to treat our citizens with respect, decency and kindness and, above all, to help those who need assistance to help themselves. The low-income super contribution must continue. I cannot allow so many Australians, so many Queenslanders, to be hurt by this government's ruthless, unnecessary and unAustralian attempt to penny pinch and remove the low-income super contribution. Australia needs real leadership, and the amendments we will propose provide us with the opportunity to deliver on this need. The low-income super contribution is an investment in our people's future and it must be retained, so I commend the essential amendments to the Senate.

1:36 pm

Photo of Catryna BilykCatryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, welcome to Groundhog Day! We spoke in the chamber earlier this year on the bill to repeal the minerals resource rent tax. Like with the carbon bills that we have debated again and again and will debate again this week, we are back to debate legislation on the minerals resource rent tax again. This time the bill before us, the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013 [No. 2], may well pass with the support of Mr Palmer's friends in this place—although if those opposite try and double-deal with him again who knows what might happen. Those opposite need to start dealing with the crossbenchers honestly and with some respect.

As I said in my contribution earlier this year, those opposite claimed they would be a 'no surprises' government. What a joke, because this government are nothing but surprises. Australians are waking up to a new surprise every day. Unfortunately, those opposite are trying to fool all of the people all of the time; the Australian people are sick to death of it. I have never seen so much anger in the community over a budget as I have with the budget the government have just delivered. The people of Australia are stunned, absolutely stunned, that this government could try to pass changes that are so fundamentally against Australian values, and they are still in shock that the government want to utterly abolish the principle of universal health care for all, which has underpinned this nation for 30 years.

But the Australian people are not fooled by this government. They are waking up to this government trying to abolish the schoolkids bonus by stealth in this bill, costing the average family $15,000 over the period of their children's schooling. Small business owners are waking up to the fact that they will be thousands of dollars worse off as the instant asset write-off is slashed from $5,000 to $1,000 because of this bill. Regional communities are waking up to the fact that they have lost hundreds of millions of dollars in funding through the abolition of the Regional Infrastructure Fund and the Regional Development Australia Fund. And the Australian people have woken up to Mr Abbott's plan to abolish the low-income super tax contribution but keep generous tax concessions for high-income earners. Most Australian people have angrily spoken out against it.

The Prime Minister and those who sit on the opposite side of this chamber were not upfront with the Australian people. They did not explain to the Australian people that when they said 'axe the tax' they actually meant 'cut your retirement savings, hurt small businesses, make it harder to pay for your children's education and let rural and regional communities fall into disrepair'. I know that it is not as catchy, but it certainly is a lot more honest. But as they like three-word sound bites, the Liberal-National government could have found some to honestly campaign with to convey their intentions to the Australian people. 'Tax the sick' could have been one. They could also have used 'business tax increase', 'no new uniforms', or 'help rich miners'. 'Let regions rot' would have been another accurate three-word catchphrase for this government. I am wondering why the government did not campaign using any of these three-word slogans. Of course they knew if they actually took the time to explain their policies deliberately targeting those Australians who are least well-off then no-one would have voted them in.

Many Australians feel that they were duped by those opposite, that they were not given the full story. This government has put forward policies that the people of Australia are vehemently opposed to. Some may have been mentioned in the fine print, but they certainly did not appear in the TV ads or in the fliers that appeared in people's letterboxes. Others were not mentioned at all. No radio ad was targeted to people over 50 on Newstart saying the income support bonus for them would be cut. No Liberal doorknocker stood on a family's doorstep to tell them that there was going to be a $7 GP tax increase. No TV ads said the schoolkids bonus would be axed and it would not even reinstate the education tax refund, which it replaced. No fridge magnets were sent to the 2.7 million small businesses to tell them that the instant asset write-off would be reduced by 80 per cent. Perhaps the three-word slogan it should have campaigned on was 'lack of vision' because it takes an extraordinary lack of vision to not see that helping those on the lowest incomes builds up their retirement savings, helping the whole of Australian society. It takes an extraordinary lack of vision to not see that regional Australia is in need of infrastructure to drive growth, especially in the economies of rural communities, and to improve the quality of life of people in these communities. And it takes an extraordinary lack of vision to not see that ensuring that parents can afford the required books, stationery, computer equipment and uniforms result in better educational outcomes for their children and higher productivity for society as a whole.

The explanatory memorandum to this bill outlines the financial impact of discontinuing the Regional Infrastructure Fund and the Regional Development Australia Fund. It also explains that no legislative changes are required to discontinue the Regional Infrastructure Fund and the Regional Development Australia Fund. Then why is the axed money being counted in the financial impact of this bill? What a disingenuous stunt by those opposite. We have already seen the axing of the Regional Development Australia Fund and the purpose of the Regional Development Australia Fund—the RDAF—is to support regional areas of Australia with infrastructure needs.

I am really disappointed that the Nationals are once again supporting cuts to regional Australia. Despite what they say, the Nationals are not standing up for rural Australia—

Photo of Fiona NashFiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | | Hansard source

Rubbish!

Photo of Catryna BilykCatryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

because they are supporting a GP tax that will disproportionately affect rural Australia.

Photo of Fiona NashFiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | | Hansard source

Absolute rubbish!

Photo of Catryna BilykCatryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

They are supporting a fuel tax that will disproportionately affect Australia.

Senator Nash interjecting

They are supporting a paid parental leave scheme that will disproportionately affect rural Australia.

Senator Nash interjecting

I thought, Senator Nash, that you would have fought harder for the communities you claim to represent. It was ironic that it was the Nationals leader and Deputy Prime Minister, Warren Truss, who revealed the government will not fund projects in round 5 of the Regional Development Australia Fund, which were worth about $3 million to my home state of Tasmania. Even when the minister responsible for regional Australia is the Leader of the Nationals, they still cut investment in infrastructure in regional Australia. And I have spoken previously in this place about the projects that have been axed by the Liberals and the Nationals.

Photo of Fiona NashFiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | | Hansard source

Fifty billion dollars is not a cut!

Photo of Catryna BilykCatryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

You should listen to this, Senator Nash. These include projects at St Helens, Geilston Bay, Devonport, the central coast municipality, Triabunna, Glenorchy, Ranelagh and Huonville. These are all projects that would have improved the quality of life for people in these and surrounding communities, created jobs and improved fitness and general welfare. These are projects supported by the local governments in these regions, and it is disappointing that those opposite are continuing to hack away, axing projects without any support.

It is Labor that cares about regional infrastructure. The former Labor government's $6 billion Regional Infrastructure Fund—or RIF—was to invest in nation building projects to build productive economic capacity so that we can sustainably grow of our economy with low inflation in the years to come. The RIF would have meant more investment in rail, roads, ports and other critical economic infrastructure to support the workforce and jobs in regional and mining communities. And it is disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful, that the Nationals will just sit there and not stand up for regional communities. Those opposite have definitely got their priorities wrong. You should be governing in the interests of the Australian people, not friends in big business. It is utterly amazing that, in debating this bill today, they are giving billions of dollars of tax breaks to mining companies while, at the same time, wanting to get rid of tax breaks on superannuation for those earning under $37,000 and getting rid of all support to meet children's education costs. They give billions of dollars of tax breaks for mining companies while at the same time getting rid of tax breaks for small businesses. So much for the party of small business. This tells you something about the priorities of this government. Help those who bankroll the Liberal National Party and ignore the rest. Help your mates in the mining sector and tread on everybody else. Unlike those who are acting in the self-interest of a small minority, we on this side of the chamber believe that a profits based tax on minerals sectors—minerals which belong to the Australian people—is a good reform. It is about ensuring Australians get a fair return for their resources. I do not know why those opposite have such a problem with the minerals resource rent tax as it applies only when miners are making extraordinary and incredible profits.

We know that cycles go through booms and troughs, and this tax applies when things are booming. According to your own financial impact statement in the bill's explanatory memorandum—your numbers, not ours—this bill will give big miners a $3.3 billion dollar tax cut over the forward estimates. Gee, what a budget emergency we must have when you are giving such a big tax break to mining industry! It would seem like your budget emergency is a giant furphy. And to add insult to injury, while cutting the low income super contributions to millions of Australians, including 2.1 million Australian women, the Liberals and Nationals are boosting the super for 16,000 people who have over $2 million in super balances. I am glad to hear public statements that the Palmer senators will not be supporting the cut to the low income super contribution, the LISC.

But I will speak on the LISC for the benefit of other senators in this place. A significant percentage of the women that would have been affected by the abolition of the LISC are mothers working part-time while looking after young children. This is exactly the time in women's careers where an additional $500 a year going into superannuation would be of most benefit for building savings towards their retirement. Industry Super Australia estimates that when combined with the proposed delay in increasing the super guarantee to 12 per cent the removal of the LISC will reduce national savings by $53 billion by 2021-22. And, as everyone listening would know, one of the major investors in Australian infrastructure is superannuation funds.

This thoughtless attack on low-income earners is not only hurting the lowest paid Australian workers; it is also thoughtlessly sabotaging Australia's capacity to build infrastructure into the future. It is typical, I must say, of this heartless, visionless Abbott government. The lack of vision of those opposite is somewhat startling. Once again the surprising inclusion of cuts to the schoolkids bonus is in this bill today. I have spoken to I do not know how many people about this issue, and everyone I have spoken to is opposed to this. Parents, teachers, and those dreaded unions that those on the other side are so hung up about that represent teachers and other school workers, are opposed to this measure.

Generally when you put together a bill, it contains only things that are relevant to the issues at hand. You do not just shove random provisions into the bill. What a sneaky, underhanded trick. The schoolkids bonus is not and should never be seen to be relevant to this bill. Never! It was enacted in the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill 2012 and not in the Minerals Resources Rent Tax Bill 2011. It was never to be funded by the MRRT and linking it in this way is a shameless way to axe it.

Photo of Jacinta CollinsJacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | | Hansard source

It is fraud.

Photo of Catryna BilykCatryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

You are right Senator Collins; it is complete fraud. If you want to scrap the schoolkids bonus, why not present it to this place as the 'Schoolkids Bonus Repeal Bill 2014'. At least that would be open and honest rather than sneakily hiding it in the MRRT repeal bill.

The schoolkids bonus delivers parents some extra help to meet the large costs associated with sending a child to school. It is paid automatically to eligible parents just when they need it to buy uniforms, school books, laptops or tablets, stationery and any other things that their children might need for school. Those opposite are including it in this bill simply to make the financial impact of this bill look artificially better than what it actually is. It is why discontinuing the RDAF and regional infrastructure funding are included too. It is pretty disingenuous. When the schoolkids bonus was introduced those opposite opposed it because they claimed it was not specifically targeted to education. They called it a 'cash splash' and they did not trust Australian families to spend it on the educational needs of their children. They said the education tax refund was a better way, despite the fact that millions of families were not getting their full entitlements as receipts often got misplaced throughout the year. Now the Liberal-National government are scrapping the schoolkids bonus and not even reintroducing the education tax refund. And, although they supported the education tax refund and promised to increase it if elected at the 2010 election, no, they are just scrapping it. Scrapping the whole measure! Scrapping the measure that replaced it and replacing it with nothing—zilch!

They do not care about supporting Australian families at all. They do not care about supporting the education of Australian children as their recent double backflip on education shows. We know those opposite hate those on Newstart payments—a number of the previous speakers have already mentioned this. As well as attacking the young with the draconian new measures to create high levels of homelessness for those under the age of 30, this bill would also abolish the income support bonus, a tax-free payment to help people prepare for unexpected living costs such as medical expenses or car repairs. If the proposed abolition is successful, around 1.1 million low-income Australians, primarily people receiving Newstart or youth allowance, will lose the payment.

The income support bonus is an income-tax-exempt, indexed, non-means-tested payment made twice every year to eligible social security recipients. It was introduced in early 2013 'in recognition of the fact that the current rates of income support allowance payments are manifestly inadequate'. The bonus provides $210 a year to single recipients and $350 a year to most couples where both partners are eligible. The bonus is paid in instalments in March and September each year and is vital for people receiving income support to make ends meet. This is just another cruel attack on people on Newstart from those opposite. That is what this government is about—attacking those that they think won't hit back. But I believe they will and I believe that the Australian people have had enough.

This bill shows just how little those opposite care about small business as well. This bill will increase taxes on up to 2.7 million small businesses and close the loss-carry-back scheme, taking away tax breaks for up to 110,000 businesses. Often the interests of big businesses and small businesses do not align, but the coalition's plan to remove these small business investment incentives has united big and small business in opposition, with both the Australian Industry Group and the Council of Small Business of Australia speaking out against the removal. The Abbott government is uniting Australia through hatred of its policies.

Even the coalition's friends in the Australian Industry Group do not support the provision that would reduce the small business asset write-off threshold. In evidence given to the Senate Economics Committee's inquiry into this bill, Dr Burn, from the Ai Group, stated that the existing arrangement provides a very important boost to a company's cash flow 'at a time when they need it most and at a time when it is going to be most critical in ensuring the survival of that business'. He also informed the committee that the Australian economy faced a 'large gap in investment, particularly outside the mining sector'. He stated that the proposal to remove the instant write-off facility for small business would have a material effect on them and 'decrease investment at the time it is needed most'. In his view, waiting for the tax review in these cases is 'poor timing' and that the 'timing needed is right now'.

Those opposite believe the purpose of being in government is to overturn everything the previous government did. Well, guess what? It isn't; it is to lead in the interests of the Australian people, not big business mates. Those opposite got elected on those wonderful three-word slogans!

Senator Cash interjecting

Governing is about more than three-word slogans, glib sound bites and relentless negativity. Now they have to explain to the Australian people why a bill called repeal of the mineral resource rent tax means they are going to lose their schoolkids bonus. Now they have to explain to 2.7 million small businesses why they are getting a tax hike. The senators opposite need to explain—

Senator Cash interjecting

Maybe if you were quiet and listened you might learn something on that side.

Photo of Christopher BackChristopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Order! Quiet on my right.

Photo of Catryna BilykCatryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

The senators opposite need to explain to 2.1 million working women why there is going to be a tax hike on their superannuation if the LISC changes are passed. Those opposite need to explain to the people who receive the income support bonus why the Liberal-National government is taking it away just when they need their car fixed or their fridge replaced. These people cannot just be brushed aside. The only three-word slogan that the Australian people want to hear now is 'one-term Tony'.

1:55 pm

Photo of Deborah O'NeillDeborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I normally say it is a pleasure to be able to rise in this place and speak on the matters that are here for our consideration. But I am finding that, day after day as I come into this place, there is not much that is pleasurable about the things that I have to say with regard to the legislation that this government is ramming through—and the deceptive nature of what they communicated before the election and the miserly view of Australia that is embedded in the legislation that comes before this House under the leadership of this new government.

The repeal of the mineral resources rent tax confirms the great fiction behind this deceptive government's concocted budget crisis. Fresh from hitting lower- and middle-income Australia with cruel cuts and tax increases, they now offer government largesse to some of the largest multinational corporations. This legislation that we are discussing today is determined to deny Australians fair remuneration for the sale of minerals that we as Australians own. It is our natural inheritance of the natural wealth of this country. This legislation is nothing short of corporate welfare, releasing this government from any responsibility to share profits equitably across the nation. It is another repetition of the type of legislation determined to not only to create inequity but to entrench it—to embed it in the very legislation of the nation. The Abbott government is actively encouraging the mining sector to become, in their disgraceful language, 'the leaners' and the people who are dealing the hard work lifting for this country—ordinary working people, people on middle incomes, people in small businesses right across this nation—have cause to be completely offended by this legislation repealing the mining resource rent tax coming through from this government. Hardworking families now, thanks to Tony Abbott's cruel cuts and tax increases, are going to be forced into a struggle even greater than that which they currently confront.

We have got workers being forced to pay $7 just to see a GP—reports that people are anxiety ridden and unable to actually consider even going to the doctor. They are so frightened about the fact that they might not to be able to afford the basic services that are part of the ordinary fabric of a healthy society. This sick tax has not even started yet, but so fearful are the Australian people of the legislative agenda that they have already seen revealed by this government that that is the social impact of what they are threatening to do.

Australians should get the health care they deserve; not the health care that Tony Abbott decides that they can afford. But according to this sorry excuse for a government, the actual health care of Australians comes second or a very long way behind the needs of multinational corporations in the mining sector. That is without considering the litany of unfair measures contained in the unfair budget: cuts to pensioners, cuts to students, cruel cuts to those unfortunate enough to be unemployed. The Abbott government seems to have a view that you are unfortunate enough to have little, you should be punished more for having less. Apparently the coalition believes the destitute should be destitute and they should be punished for being so. On the other hand, being a successful multinational corporation deserves a generous welfare cheque from this sham of a government. The decisions made by this government in its very short time continue to reveal the shocking list of inequity.

Debate interrupted.